Washington D.C. - Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Texas. The highest court will now decide whether the President’s deferred action initiatives announced in November 2014, known as expanded DACA and DAPA, move forward.

“The lawyers arguing for the deferred action initiatives made a convincing case that the law and the Constitution are on our side. As expected, the Justices asked probing questions to both sides, demonstrating they understand the high stakes involved this case,” said Beth Werlin, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council.

According to the Council’s Legal Director Melissa Crow, “Much of the argument focused on whether Texas really has standing – a sufficient stake in the outcome of the case to file a lawsuit. The arguments highlighted the fact that this is a political dispute about enforcement policies, not the type of legal dispute that should be before the Supreme Court. Texas’ arguments on standing are unconvincing. As Justice Breyer noted, a finding by the Court that Texas has standing could flood the courts with lawsuits based on all kinds of political disagreements between States and the federal government.”

President Obama’s deferred action initiatives advance common-sense enforcement priorities. To qualify for deferred action, individuals must have continuously resided in the United States since January 1, 2010, register with the government and pass a criminal background check. Instead of tearing apart families through broad enforcement actions, the President is letting law enforcement officials focus their attention on those who pose the greatest threats to public safety.

The American Immigration Council and 325 other immigrants’ rights, civil rights, labor and service-provider organizations filed an amicus brief in the case outlining how families and communities would benefit from the initiatives.

06/25/2012

This morning the U.S. Supreme Court released it's opinion in Arizona v. U.S.

The Court held that 3 of the 4 challenged provisions of Arizona SB 1070 were preempted by federal law, but that the controversial §2(B) (commonly referred to as the "papers please" portion of the law) cannot be enjoined "before the state courts had an opportunity to construe it and without some showing that enforcement of the provision in fact conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives."

Regarding the "papers please" section of SB 1070, the Court states that:

There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law. ... This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.

The other 3 sections were held to be preempted. Two of these create state misdemeanor offenses for failing to carry alien registration documents and for unauthorized aliens applying for work or working in Arizona. Section 6 authorizes warrentless arrest of aliens suspected of being removaable.

01/03/2012

A stinging opinion by Justice Elena Kagan for a unanimous Supreme Court reinforced last month a message that lower courts have been sending for many years: the law applied in immigration cases too often fails to meet the standards of justice.

In Judulang v. Holder, the failure was total: a decision on deportation that made no sense. As Justice Kagan pointedly wrote, “We must reverse an agency policy when we cannot discern a reason for it.” That judgment, unfortunately, applies to much of the snarled and absurd processes in the immigration courts.

06/07/2011

The high court rejects an appeal to California's policy of giving in-state college tuition to state high school graduates who are in the country without permission. The action leaves in place laws in 11 other states that permit undocumented immigrants to obtain in-state tuition, including Texas.

09/20/2010

New York Times Adam Liptik reports on the case of Rosa Gallardo, a U.S. citizen child who was deported along with her Mexican father over the objections of her U.S. citizen mother, Monica Castro. Ms. Castro was separated from her daughter for three years because of the actions of the Border Patrol.

Ms. Castro has sued the U.S.under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Both the District Court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled that the federal government cannot be sued for the discretionary actions of the Border Patrol. She has to appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

08/26/2010

"State lawmakers looking for guidance on how to draft immigration legislation that can withstand federal legal challenges may not have to wait for resolution of the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Arizona.

"In testimony last week before the House State Affairs Committee, Deputy First Assistant Attorney General David Morales said a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court — U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria — could provide guidance to state governments looking to crack down on immigration, which has traditionally been the province of federal authorities.

"In the case, the chamber challenges the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which requires that state’s businesses to use E-Verify, a service that purports to confirm the legal employment status of immigrants but has drawn criticism for inaccuracies and delays. Unlike the Arizona's controversial SB 1070 — which allows local police to enforce immigration laws but has been largely gutted by a federal judge — the Legal Arizona Workers Act has been upheld by district and appellate courts. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case soon.

"The legal principle at issue is the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which Morales explained essentially means that “all things being equal, federal law trumps conflicting state law.” The district court, however, upheld the Arizona Workers Act, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — the same court that will has the SB 1070 appeal — concurred. “The state had the power, under its police powers, to regulate businesses and the licensure of businesses,” Morales explained.

"Despite the appellate court's ruling, acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Kumar Katyal petitioned the Supreme Court to review Candelaria. Katyal argued the Arizona provisions "disrupt a careful balance that Congress struck nearly 25 years ago between two interests of the highest importance: ensuring that employers do not undermine enforcement of immigration laws by hiring unauthorized workers, while also ensuring that employers not discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities legally in the country."

“The way that the U.S. Supreme Court decides on that case could be very instructive as to what happens in the SB 1070 case," assuming it also proceeds to the high court, Morales testified."

08/23/2010

"If undertaking the justifiably difficult process of amending the U.S. Constitution would effectively deter illegal immigration and satisfactorily deal with the millions of undocumented residents already in the country, the effort might be worthwhile.

"But all this talk about "anchor babies" and "birth tourism" and congressional hearings on the 14th Amendment are political sound and fury that accomplish nothing constructive regarding U.S. immigration policy.

***

Constitutional tinkering based more on fear than facts is dangerous business.

08/08/2010

"In Texas, between 60,000 to 65,000 babies achieve U.S. citizenship annually by being born in the state's hospitals, according to a tally released by the state's Health and Human Services Commission. Last year, such births represented almost 16 percent of the total births statewide.

08/04/2010

Dallas Morning News - Todd Gillman reports that "Texas Sen. John Cornyn is the latest senior Republican to call for a review of “birthright citizenship,” amid complaints that illegal immigrants have abused that post-Civil War constitutional provision.

“We need to have hearings. We need to consult constitutional scholars and study what the implications are,” Cornyn said Wednesday, noting that about 540,000 people were caught illegally entering the United States last year through Mexico.

The issue of whether citizenship should be restricted based on the status of a baby's parents has become the latest skirmish in the fight over illegal immigration and border security. Democratshave denounced the GOP push to review birthright citizenship as a shameful attack on innocent children, an effort to cherry pick from the Constitution, and an election-season tactic to infuriate conservative voters."